October Term 2020 · Docket 19-1155

Does the credibility presumption bind federal courts reviewing asylum denials?

the sides that brought the case seek to enforce a credibility presumption in federal court reviews. the opposing sides argue courts should ignore this presumption when checking agency decisions.

Official caption
Wilkinson v. Ming Dai
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Ms. Sinzdak argued the statute places the burden of proof on the asylum seeker.

    She stated testimony must be persuasive and outweigh other evidence to meet that burden.

    Mr. Katyal noted the government initially claimed courts should not enforce the presumption.

    He argued the government now accepts the presumption applies in federal court reviews.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests how federal courts review asylum denials. The core dispute involves the legal weight of a credibility presumption. the sides that brought the case argue this presumption limits judicial review. the opposing sides argue courts must ignore it during substantial evidence checks.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 23, 2021.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want federal courts to enforce the credibility presumption when reviewing agency decisions.

the opposing sides want federal courts to ignore the credibility presumption during substantial evidence review.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue the presumption limits judicial review to what the agency actually said.

the opposing sides argue the presumption does not apply when courts conduct substantial evidence review.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked how much explanation proves an implicit credibility finding.

Justice Thomas asked if physical evidence affects both credibility and persuasiveness equally.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute defines the scope of judicial review for asylum seekers. It determines whether courts must defer to agency credibility findings. The outcome shapes the legal path for future immigration appeals.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON